Most brand endorsement agreements in use today were drafted for a world of photoshoots, appearances and print or television campaigns. They typically address usage term, territory, media channels and exclusivity — but rarely say anything specific about AI-generated content, because the standard templates predate the current wave of generative tools.
That gap matters more than it might appear. The Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India ruling shows how quickly a celebrity's persona can be exploited through AI once it exists in any public form — a photograph, a voice sample, a video clip. A brand that has licensed a celebrity's image for one campaign, without a clear AI-use clause, leaves open questions on both sides: can the brand itself use AI tools to extend, remix or animate the licensed content beyond what was agreed? And is the brand obligated to take any steps if third parties begin generating unauthorised AI content using assets the brand's own campaign made public?
A well-drafted AI clause in an endorsement contract should address at least three things: first, whether the brand's licence extends to AI-assisted editing or generation of new content from the licensed materials, and if so, within what limits. Second, what obligations the brand has if it becomes aware of third-party AI misuse of the endorser's likeness arising from campaign materials it published. Third, how liability and cooperation are allocated if the endorser needs to seek an injunction of the kind granted in the Anil Kapoor and Jackie Shroff matters — including whether the brand will support or oppose such action.
None of this requires anticipating every future use of AI. It requires treating the personality-rights exposure as seriously as the copyright and trademark exposure that endorsement contracts already address in detail.
